Refereed Paper Presentation Word Count: 5346

Effectively Managing the Work-Family and Work-Life Balance:An Organisational Role Theory Perspective.

Dr Mark Wickham&

Miss Melissa Parker

University of TasmaniaSchool of Management

Locked Bag 16Hobart Campus

Tasmania AUSTRALIA, 7001

Mark.Wickham@utas.edu.au(Work): 03 6226 2159(Fax): 03 6226 2808

1

Effectively Managing the Work-Family and Work-Life Balance:An Organisational Role Theory Perspective.

ABSTRACT.

The effective management of employees’ work-life balance requires organisations to recognise and account for the array of non-work roles that impact their working-lives (Estes, 2004; Higgins & Duxbury, 2005; Howard, D’Onofrio & Boles, 2004). Despite the literary attention given to the ‘work-life balance’ in recent years, however, contemporary authors still note the concept’s inadequacy both in terms of its definition and administration (Hyman & Summers, 2004; Smithson & Stokoe, 2005). In order to explore the definitional boundaries of contemporary ‘work-life balance’, this paper adopts an Organisational Role Theory (ORT) perspective. In particular, this paper will undertake an examination of ORT’s role-taking, role-consensus, and role-conflict assumptions, and present some strategies for preventing or remedying work-life imbalance issues in the workplace.

The findings of this research indicate that the work-life balance’ literature needs to incorporate a distinction between ‘work-family’ and ‘work-life’ roles, and the manner in which each impacts on an individual’s working-life. It also suggests that in order to manage these discrete impacts effectively, managers need to incorporate the concepts of ‘the multi-faceted employee’, ‘employer facilitation’ and ‘compartmentalisation’ into their strategic management of the ‘work-life balance’.

Key Words: Work-life balance, Organisational Role Theory, Strategic HRM.

2

Effectively Managing the Work-Family and Work-Life Balance:An Organisational Role Theory Perspective.

INTRODUCTION.

The effective management of employees’ work-life balance (WLB) requires organisations to

recognise and account for the array of non-work roles that impact on their working-lives

(Estes, 2004; Higgins & Duxbury, 2005; Howard, D’Onofrio & Boles, 2004). Despite the

literary attention given to the WLB in recent years, however, contemporary authors still note

the concept’s inadequacy both in terms of its definition and administration (Hyman &

Summers, 2004; Lewis, Rapoport & Gambles, 2003; Smithson & Stokoe, 2005). In order to

explore the definitional boundaries of contemporary WLB, this paper adopts an

Organisational Role Theory (ORT) perspective. In particular, this paper will explore ORT’s

role-taking, role-consensus and role-conflict assumptions, and present strategies for

preventing or remedying work-life imbalance issues in the workplace.

LITERATURE REVIEW.

The Work-Life Balance Concept.

The importance of managing an employee’s WLB has increased markedly over the past 20

years (De Bruin & Dupuis, 2004). Changes in the definition of ‘normal working hours’, the

demographic make-up of the labour force (i.e. gender, ethnicity, dual career couples, and

religion), and the very nature of the employment contract have necessitated an increased

organisational concern for their employees’ well being (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006). In order

to achieve a WLB, leading western organisations have tended to adopt policies such as on-site

child-care facilities, on-site gymnasiums, telecommuting opportunities, and even on-site

sleeping quarters for the employee and their family (Hacker & Doolen, 2003; Hyman &

Summers, 2004). Each has attempted to increase the flexibility by which employees can

effectively enact their work-roles whilst simultaneously enabling them to enact their family-

3

based roles to the extent necessary. Ideally, the WLB concept requires organisations to

effectively integrate employees’ work and non-work roles such that levels of multiple-role

conflict, and the associated stress and job-dissatisfaction, are minimised or avoided (De Bruin

& Dupuis, 2004; Greenblatt, 2002).

Why is the WLB Concept Still an Issue?

Despite the best intentions of organisations to implement WLB policies, there remains

considerable contention about their effectiveness in delivering flexibility and reducing stress

and job-dissatisfaction in the workplace (Eates, 2004; Kirrane & Buckley, 2004).

Researchers have identified two empirical shortcomings within the WLB literature that have

served to undermine its theoretical usefulness. The first relates to the WLB literature’s almost

exclusive focus on the work-family interface. Buzzanell et al, (2005) notes that the WLB

literature typically portrays role conflicts for white, married, professional and managerial

women, with little reference to the many other demographics represented in the modern

organisation. Shorthose (2004) and Wise and Bond (2003) go so far as to state that the WLB

discipline is essentially flawed, as it is ‘one-dimensional’, assumes a unitary perspective, and

that its underlying management has been one of maintaining status-quo rather than supporting

the development.

The second relates to the literature’s inability to clearly define the array of non-work roles that

impact employees’ working-life. Elloy and Smith (2004) and Spinks (2004), for example,

state that because an individual’s non-work roles are inherently ambiguous and idiosyncratic,

organisations are incapable of understanding how their enactment (or otherwise) impacts each

individual. Spinks (2004), in particular, suggests that organisations are either incapable (or

unwilling) to understand their workforce in sufficient detail, and have instead defaulted to a

‘one-size-fits-all’ policy regime that has simply enabled employees to ‘stay at work longer’

4

rather than enable them to enact their non-work roles. The inadequacy of current WLB policy

regimes is highlighted by Kiger’s (2005) study that revealed that less than two percent of

employees actually participate in available WLB programs. Dex and Smith (2002) cite two

main causes for this low figure. The first relates to equity, with many employees reporting

that they did not wish to appear a ‘special case’ or to require ‘special treatment’ to their

colleagues. The second is that the wide range of policies adopted by organisations have been

based on an ill-informed conceptualisation of contemporary WLB, and that this has led to its

ineffective formalisation in human resource management practices.

The contribution of the WLB literature, therefore, appears limited in its ability to provide a

useful framework for both academics and practitioners alike (Hyman & Summers, 2004).

Despite its name, the WLB literature remains largely focused on the work-family interface

and fails to accurately identify and define the array of non-family roles that impact on an

individual’s working-life (Hacker & Doolen, 2003; Mellor, Mathieu, Barnes-Farrell &

Rogelberg, 2001; Noor, 2004; Pocock, 2005). In order to overcome these issues, Elloy and

Smith (2003: 63) suggest that an effective conceptualisation of the WLB requires:

…an holistic approach to human resource management, which implies a greater awareness of the total context of worker’s daily lives, not just those hours they spend at work.

Research Opportunity: Applying an ORT Lens to the WLB Issue.

In response to Elloy and Smith’s (2003) call, we adopt Noor’s (2004) recommendation to

apply an ORT lens to the WLB issues above. The origins of ORT can be traced back to the

work of Katz and Kahn (1966) in their seminal work The Social Psychology of Organizations,

which provided a conceptualisation of employee’s role-adoption and role-behaviours.

Specifically, ORT focuses on the roles that individuals enact in social systems that are pre-

planned, task-oriented, and hierarchical, and therefore form a vital function in the

achievement of organisational goals (Biddle, 1986). According to ORT, the assigned work-

5

roles must be conferred and/or adopted by each individual employee in order for an

organisation to function effectively as a social entity. As a social entity, an organisation

comprises a nexus of distinct functional groups of employees that have specific work-roles to

enact. Under ORT, these distinct functional areas form a ‘role-set’ for the employee, and

determine the specific role-behaviour that the employee is expected to enact in their given

context (Katz & Kahn, 1966). As such, the enacted set of role-behaviours essentially mirrors

the expectation of other relevant employees, and implies two important points. The first is that

each individual employee both confers and accepts a ‘role’ that is reflective of the

organisation’s culture and norms of behaviour. The second is that for an organisation to

function effectively and efficiently, the array of ‘roles’ must be effectively communicated,

understood, and agreed by all of its employees (Katz & Kahn, 1966).

In order to control for manifest disagreement (i.e. any variation between role-expectation and

actual role-enactment), ORT provides a review framework known as ‘role-episodes’. A role-

episode refers to any interaction between employees whereby role-expectations and role-

behaviours are manifest in measurable consequences. Where deviance from expected role-

enactment is detected (e.g. excessive absenteeism, failure to perform, etc.) management

functions such as ‘performance reviews’ or ‘retraining’ allow the organisation to re-confer or

clarify role-expectations upon the deviant employee (Katz & Kahn, 1966). The role-episode

review process is necessarily dynamic; therefore role-sending and role-receiving continue

until the perception of role-enactment conforms to the role-expectations. The role-episode

review function is underpinned by the following assumptions:

that an employee will ‘take’ or accept a role that is conferred upon them by members of the organisation (the role-taking assumption); and

there will be consensus regarding the expectations of all roles (the role-consensus assumption); and

the belief that role-conflict will arise if expectations are not consensual (the role-conflict assumption) (Biddle, 1986).

6

De Bruin and Dupuis (2004) suggest that by applying ORT’s assumptions to the WLB issue, a

greater understanding about WLB role-taking, role-consensus, and role-conflict can be

achieved.

METHOD.

This research comprised a two-stage process. The first stage included the use of a

questionnaire-survey that was completed by n=102 full-time employees from the Hobart

business community (NB: a 26 percent response rate). The sample included 72 women and 30

men, with a mean age of 36 and range of 22 to 55 years. The questionnaire-survey included

open-ended questions that allowed respondents to provide detailed qualitative feedback

regarding the array of non-work roles that they felt impacted on their working-life. The

recurrent issues arising from the questionnaire-surveys were explored in greater depth during

the second stage of the research, which comprised n=20 semi-structured interviews. The

semi-structured interviews included a standard set of questions asked of each interviewee, but

were designed to allow the researcher latitude to explore unanticipated issues as they arose.

The semi-structured interviews lasted between 15 and 30 minutes each, and were recorded

onto audiotape. The interviewer also took written notes during the interview for the purpose

of contextualising transcribed data during the subsequent coding process.

The interpretation of the data, the construction of ‘category nodes’, and the verification of the

conclusions, were facilitated by the use of the NUD*IST software package. The categories

initially generated from the literature review formed an index system that appears as the

Nodes represented in Figure 1.

7

Figure 1: NUD*IST Index Tree: Nodes Emanating from the Literature Review

(1) Organisational Role Theory (1 1) The role-taking assumption(1 2) The role-consensus assumption

(1 2 1) Work-life balance(1 3) The role-conflict assumption

The primary questionnaire-surveys and semi-structured interview transcripts were then

scrutinised for significant terms, events, and issues located therein according to units of

observation, and coded according to the nodes in the index system. Where it was appropriate,

data were allocated to more than one node for analysis. Again using the NUD*IST software,

the contents of each if the initial index nodes were reviewed to identify common themes that

arose in the primary data. Subsequently, additional nodes were established to categorise the

results of the primary data analysis (see Figure 2 for the complete list of nodes to emerge

from the data analysis).

Figure 2: NUD*IST Index Tree: Nodes Emanating from the Primary Data Analysis

(1) Organisational Role Theory (1 1) The role- taking assumption

(1 1 1) Acceptance of role(1 1 2) Non-acceptance of role

(1 2) The role-consensus assumption(1 2 1) Work-life balance

(1 2 1 1) Sporting-based(1 2 1 2) Charity-based(1 2 1 3) Education-based(1 2 1 4) Socially-based

(1 2 2) Work-family balance(1 2 2 1) Family-based roles

(1 3) The role-conflict assumption(1 4) Multi-faceted employees

(1 4 1) Emotional investment(1 4 1 1) Self-validation(1 4 1 2) Self-definition(1 4 1 3) Relationship management

(1 5) Employer facilitation of non-work roles(1 5 1) Employer recognition(1 5 2) Open communication(1 5 3) Employer assistance

(1 6) Compartmentalisation

8

In order to facilitate the theory building process later in the research process, memos were

maintained about the data, their categories, and the relationships between them as they

emerged. Designed to store and organise ideas about the data, they were integrated into the

analytic process. Wilson (1985: 420) suggests that memos assist in the development of

theory in five important ways:

They require that you move your thinking about the idea to a conceptual level. They summarise the properties of each category so that you can begin to construct

operational definitions. They summarise propositions about relationships between categories and their

propositions. They begin to integrate categories with clusters of other categories. They relate your analysis to other theories.

NUD*IST has a facility for the creation and retention of such memos for later consideration

and analysis. Utilising the memo capability within the NUD*IST package, memo reports

were generated by the software during the analysis of the primary data. From these reports,

the interaction between the parties’ became clearer, the context of the various phenomena

surfaced, causes and effects were revealed. The themes emanating from the primary data

analysis form the basis of the discussion section that follows.

DISCUSSION.

In total, the sample returned a list of 35 non-work roles that they felt impacted on their

working-life. Consistent with the WLB literature the most commonly reported non-work roles

to impact on the working-life was that of being a spouse. Other Family-based non-work roles

that were reported included ‘parent’, ‘being a child’, ‘sibling’, and being ‘extended family’.

Respondents also reported an array of twenty-two non-family roles not represented in the

WLB literature. Table 1 presents the complete list of non-work roles reported by respondents.

9

Table 1: Reported Non-Work Roles of the Respondent Group1. Spouse 19. Taxi Driver (kids)2. Parent 20. Sports Official3. Recreational Sportsperson 21. Grandchild4. Student 22. Artist5. Child 23. Traveller6. Volunteer 24. Consultant7. Sibling 25. Neighbour8. Friend 26. Political Advocate9. Committee Member 27. Justice of the Peace10. Pet Owner 28. Church Council Member11. Grandparent 29. Flatmate12. Aunt/Uncle 30. Musician13. Self 31. Child-in-Law14. Carer 32. Financial Controller15. Mentor 33. Home Maker16. Godparent 34. Relative17. Home Renovator 35. Army Reserve Soldier18. Counsellor

The first-round coding of the data identified five categories of non-work roles that

respondents reported impacted on their working-life: Family-based, Sporting-based, Charity-

based, Education-based, and Socially-based roles. It was also found that these non-work roles

impacted working-life in three common ways: ‘time’, ‘skill development’ and ‘stress’, but

with differing effect. In terms of its impact on working-life, Family-based roles required

greater flexibility in terms of the organisation’s workplace practices. This finding was

consistent with the WLB literature in that organisations were aware of their employees’

Family-based roles and accommodated them through workplace policies. However, this

research indicates that respondents felt that this awareness and the subsequent policies served

largely to increase their time at work rather than enabling them to enact the Family-based

roles as they would wish. In addition, respondents noted that the skills that develop in their

Family-based roles such as time management, conflict resolution, and negotiation could be

more greatly appreciated by their organisations. Where respondents reported that

organisational policies impacted their ability to enact Family-based roles or that their Family-

10

based skills were not recognised in the workplace increased levels of stress and dissatisfaction

was reported.

In terms of their Sporting-based roles, respondents reported three impacts on their working-

life. The first impact was that greater flexibility was required in terms of workplace policies to

allow employees to regularly participate in their sporting activities. The second related to the

skills developed by respondents their sporting-based roles (such as leadership and

communication) and their perception that they were not necessarily recognised by their

organisations. The third impact related to the working-life time lost due to injury and travel

requirements. Where respondents indicated that their organisation recognised these three

impacts and facilitated the enactment of Sporting-based roles, greater satisfaction and lower

levels of stress were reported. Conversely, where respondents indicated that their organisation

restricted their ability to enact their Sporting-based roles and ignored the skills developed in

these roles, higher levels of stress and dissatisfaction were reported.

In terms of their Charity-based roles, respondents reported two impacts on their working-life.

The first impact was that greater flexibility was required in terms of organisational workplace

policies to allow employees to participate in Charity-based roles. The second impact related to

the use of specialist skills (e.g. First Aid, Fire Safety etc.) that respondents developed in their

Charity-based roles and the fact that these would be of great value in their workplace. Where

respondents indicated that their organisation restricted their ability to enact their Charity-

based roles in favour of enacting their workplace roles, higher levels of dissatisfaction were

reported. Conversely, respondents also indicated that where their organisation failed to

recognise the specialist skills developed in their Charity-based roles, increased levels of

dissatisfaction were reported.

11

In terms of their Education-based roles, respondents reported three impacts on their working-

life. The first impact was that greater flexibility was required in terms of organisational

workplace policies that facilitated employee’s studies, for example, study leave, clear career

progression opportunities, etc. The second impact related to the increased level of work to

complete because of the additional demands of their education program. The third impact

related to the use of the technical skills (such as accounting, finance, law, etc.) developed in

their Education-based roles. Where respondents indicated that their organisation recognised

their Education-based roles and facilitated these roles higher levels of satisfaction and career

advancement opportunities were reported. Conversely, where respondents indicated that their

Education-based roles were not recognised, and in fact had to work unpaid overtime to

perform their required work-roles, greater levels of dissatisfaction were reported.

In terms of their Socially-based roles, respondents reported one impact on their working-life.

This impact related to the increased levels of stress and dissatisfaction in their working-life, as

they were unable to access their social support networks due to the time spent enacting their

work-roles. This was most markedly noted in instances where respondents were expected to

work unpaid overtime in order to enact their work-roles to the standard required by the

respondent’s direct supervisors.

An analysis of the specific impact each non-work role had on respondents’ working-life

resulted in the detection of three major themes, each of which having important implications

for both ORT and the effective management of the WLB. The three themes identified from

the data included the ‘multi-faceted employee’, ‘employer facilitation’, and

‘compartmentalisation’. The first key theme identified was that of the ‘multi-faceted

employee’. The research findings indicated that the respondent group enacted an array of

non-work roles that included both Family-based and non-Family roles, and that each served to

12

fulfil specific needs within the individual. The reported ‘fulfilment’ was identified to have

three components: self-validation, self-definition, and relationship management. Self-

validation refers to the extent to which the respondents felt that the enacted roles reinforced

their sense of self-worth. Self-definition refers to how the respondents felt the enacted roles

reflected them as an individual. Relationship management refers to the extent that respondents

felt that they were able to interact with their self-defined support networks. The following

respondents exemplified these components:

They are an integral part of ‘me’. I get self-validation from fulfilling these roles for others, in particular the volunteer role.

They define my society and the social networks that I interact in.

I feel that my activities and achievements help define who I am. I do not wish to be defined purely by my paid work.

‘Spouse’ and ‘parent’ are the roles that I have taken which involve commitment, trust and ongoing effort and involvement. They are also the two main sources of satisfaction, enjoyment, and sense of worth that I have.

Respondents reported that when the enactment of work-roles came at the expense of the

fulfilment experienced in their non-work roles, the likelihood of dissatisfaction and turnover

in the workplace increased:

When I was working at a much higher senior management level in a previous position for 14 years it was very difficult. I would need to take work home constantly and this impacted on my parenting role significantly. I changed positions for this reason.

Ideally, I would like to work part-time to be able to do all the things I want to do, such as spend time with my family and do volunteer work, but unfortunately, I have to work to live.

The second key theme identified related to ‘employer facilitation’. Employer facilitation

refers to the extent an employee perceives that their firm recongises the existence and

importance of their non-work roles, and the extent to which they believe their firm affords

them opportunities to enact them. This theme had three components: ‘recognition of

employee’s non-work roles’, ‘open communication’, and ‘employer assistance’. The

recognition of employee’s non-work roles referred to the extent that employers recognised the

13

array of non-work roles that employees enacted. Open communication referred to the extent

that employees and employers communicated in terms of these roles and how it may

potentially impact the employee’s working-life. Employer assistance referred to the extent

that employers assisted employees in facilitating the enactment of non-work roles. These

components were exemplified by the following respondents:

They are aware of some impacts, but not all.

It doesn’t occur to people that when you have a young family you have other roles as well.

I mainly discussed a non-work role that eventuated through work that boosted my role in the interview. I am a mentor to a student … They were very supportive and impressed that I had taken this on, as well as try and study. They have even offered me a vehicle on occasions for getting to the college during the day for workshops.

Moving into that new role, I felt I needed to be honest about my priorities and they respected that and said they would work with me to balance it. They said they wanted to retain me in that workplace and were prepared to introduce flexible working arrangements to do that.

I was pretty annoyed with them. I mentioned that my long work hours were interfering with my home life and so they bought me a laptop to work at home instead of in the office.

Respondents reported that where the organisation failed to recognise and/or engage in

communication regarding non-work roles, and/or did not facilitate their enactment,

respondents indicated increased dissatisfaction and intention to leave. The dissatisfaction and

intention to leave was exemplified by the following:

They weren’t [flexible] up until 12 months ago, but we got a new general manager who is much more family and flexible friendly, which has had a huge impact on me. I was previously looking to change to a company with more flexibility, but now I am happy to remain where I am.

I have thought about leaving, but they are paying for my university fees, which is an incentive to stay.

The third key theme related to ‘compartmentalisation’. In this research, compartmentalisation

refers to the attempts by employees to minimise the impact between their working-life and the

enactment of their non-work roles. Specifically, respondents reporting compartmentalisation

efforts indicated that they were doing so in order to reduce role-conflict in their working-life,

14

and not to hide the fact they enacted multiple-roles. This theme was exemplified by the

following comments:

I try to have a clear separation between work and home life.

Cram in as much activity before and after work. I make a mental choice to do all this activity and I also make a mental choice to try not to make it have an impact.

I have to actively resist the temptation (internal) and pressure to work more or do further study in order to manage my work-life balance.

I ‘attempt’ to finish work, go home and leave work at work.

I keep the two separate as much as I can.

Compartmentalisation tactics included both cognitive and behavioural components.

Cognitively, respondents reported their compartmentalisation efforts as the selective non-

disclosure of non-work roles to their colleagues. Behaviourally, respondents reported their

compartmentalisation efforts as including refusal to work overtime, refusal to ‘take work

home’, refusal to allow family members to visit them at work, and refusal to socialise with

their work colleagues. Respondents reported that where their attempts to compartmentalise

were unsuccessful, and that this led to role-conflict, they indicated experiencing a greater

level of stress and dissatisfaction. This perception was exemplified by the following

respondent:

In my private life I’m always going through what I’m trying to do at work and when I’m at work I’m wondering about other things such as is my son okay at school today, he had the sniffles this morning, he’s not getting sick is he; and I can’t concentrate totally on work. I sometimes lose my train of thought during work processes.

ORT and the WLB: Reconceptualising the Role-taking and Role-consensus Assumptions.

Given the need to explore the tenets of the WLB, the key themes of the ‘multi-faceted

employee’ and ‘employer facilitation’ can be used to inform a reconceptualisation of the role-

taking and role-consensus assumptions. Firstly, the ‘multi-faceted employee’ theme

necessitates that the WLB literature incorporate a more comprehensive array of non-work

roles that impact on employees’ working-life, and not just those associated with family duties.

15

The research indicates that three components of the ‘multi-faceted employee’ (i.e. self-

validation, self-definition, and relationship management considerations) influence employee

decisions and ability to enact work-roles, and therefore must be considered within any

framework of effective human resource management. The recognition that organisations

employ ‘multi-faceted employees’ requires managers to expand their understanding of the

manner in which employees’ construct their role-sets. It also requires managers to recognise

the manner in which family and non-family-based roles influence employees’ ability and

motivation to enact their work-roles to the standard required. Where managers were unable to

do this, respondents in this study indicated higher levels of stress, dissatisfaction, and intent to

leave the workplace.

Secondly, the ‘employer facilitation’ theme necessitates that the WLB literature incorporate

the three distinct role-groups (i.e. Work-role, Work-family, and Work-life) along with ‘open

communication’ into its tenets. It is important to note that both the Work-family and Work-

life role-groups had varying influences on respondents ability and motivation to enact their

Work-roles, and that managers need to be aware of the ‘whole person’ in their efforts to

manage their workforce holistically. As individual employees will construct role-sets

according to their specific circumstances, managers must be equipped to detect individual

differences for the effective construction of role-consensus in the workplace. Whilst this may

appear a challenge to managers in larger organisations, respondents indicated that they only

expected their organisations be aware of a small number of non-work roles they felt as

important to their well being. Where respondents felt as though they were treated as ‘one-

dimensional’, they reported higher levels of stress and dissatisfaction in their working-life. A

second implication for managers is that they need to remain aware of how the influences of an

employee’s array of non-work roles change over time. Respondents indicated that their roles

tend to change over their lifetime, and that accommodations made to them by their

16

organisation needed to similarly change to remain relevant to their wellbeing in their working

lives.

The Management of the WLB and Role-Conflict.

The issue surrounding the management of role-conflict was based on the WLB literature’s

inadequate account of the manner in which employees enact their multiple-roles. Given this

issue, the key themes of the ‘compartmentalisation’ and ‘employer facilitation’ inform a

reconceptualisation of this issue. Firstly, the ‘compartmentalisation’ theme necessitates that

the WLB literature incorporate the tendency for employees to physically separate the

enactment of their non-work roles (i.e. Work-Family and Work-Life roles) from their Work-

roles. This research found that where possible, conflicting work and non-work roles were

physically separated from each other, so that the boundaries between their working and non-

working lives did not overlap. Where respondents were able to successfully compartmentalise

their conflicting work and non-work roles, role-conflicts were minimised, as were reports of

dissatisfaction and stress. Conversely, where respondents were unable to compartmentalise

their conflicting work and non-work roles, dissatisfaction, stress, and intention to leave the

workplace were reported.

Given the recognition that employees will attempt to minimise role-conflict in their working

and non-working-life, the second key theme of ‘employer facilitation’ also informs the

reconceptualisation of effective WLB management. Specifically, where the managers assisted

respondents to effectively compartmentalise conflicting roles (e.g. ‘family-days’ off work, not

providing laptop computers so that employees were unable to work from home, etc.)

satisfaction and lower stress levels were reported. As such, the WLB literature needs to

incorporate the notion that both managers and employees are able to minimise the occurrence

and impact of role-conflict in the workplace.

17

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION.

The non-work roles found to impact on the working-life of respondents in this research were

categorised into five distinct groups, each of which had varying impacts on their working-life.

Although the research findings supported the relevance of the WLB literature to ORT, there

was evidence that at least four other categories of non-work roles needed to be considered for

the effective management of human resources. This research recommends that a distinction be

made between three groups of roles (i.e. Work-roles, Work-Family roles, and Work-Life

roles) that directly affect employee working-life. In terms of Work-roles, academics and

practitioners must remain aware of the work-roles currently recognised by the WLB literature,

and how these roles tend to impact on the fulfilment of non-work roles. In terms of better

defining the WLB boundaries within a firm, this research recommends that an ‘impact audit’

system be adopted to more specifically indicate how the array of work-roles tend to impact on

the employees’ overall WLB. With such knowledge, both the firm and the employee will

have a better understanding of the manner in which a change in work-role is likely to impact

their non-work roles, and therefore, their perception of the WLB.

In terms of Work-family roles, academics and practitioners need to recognise the specific

impacts of the work-family interface, and that the importance of varying aspects of this

interface necessarily change over a lifetime (i.e. as a person changes from single to married,

from childless to a family, etc). With this understanding, firms may be better able to match

employees with particular work-roles, and change them as it becomes necessary for both

parties. It is also important that employers become aware of the limitations of ‘family-

friendly’ practices that serve only to enable workers to spend more time at work. In terms of

Work-life roles, academics and practitioners need to recognise the significance of both non-

work and non-family roles that are none-the-less important to employees in terms of stress

relief, skill development, and the development of social support networks.

18

REFERENCES.

Biddle, B.J. 1986. Recent developments in role theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 12: 67-92.

Buzzanell, P.M. Meisenbach, R. Remke, R. Liu, M. Bowers, V. & Conn, C. 2005. The good working mother: Managerial women’s sense making and feelings about work-family issues. Communication Studies. 56(3): 261-285.

De Bruin, A. & Dupuis, A. 2004. Work-life balance? Insight from non-standard work. New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations. 29(1): 21-37.

Dex, S. & Smith, C. 2002. The nature and pattern of family-friendly employment policies in Britain. Bristol: The Policy Press for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.

Elloy, D.F. & Smith, C.R. 2003. Patterns of stress, work-family conflict, role conflict, role ambiguity and overload among dual career couples: An Australian study. Cross Cultural Management, 10(1): 55-66.

Estes, S.B. 2004. How are family-responsive workplace arrangements family-friendly? Employer accommodations, parenting, and children’s socio-emotional well-being. The Sociological Quarterly. 45(4): 637-661.

Greenblatt, E. 2002. Work-life balance: Wisdom or whining? Organizational Dynamics. 31(2): 177-193.

Greenhaus, J.H. & Powell, G.N. 2006. When work and family are allies: A theory of work-family enrichment. The Academy of Management Review. 31(1): 72-92.

Hacker, S.K. & Doolen, T.L. 2003. Strategies for living: Moving from the balance paradigm. Career Development International, 8(6): 283-290.

Higgins, C. & Duxbury, L. 2005. Saying “no” in a culture of hours, money and non-support. Ivey Business Journal Online. July/August: 1-5.

Howard, W.G. D’Onofrio, H.H. & Boles, J.S. 2004. Inter-domain work-family conflict and police work satisfaction. Policing. 27(3): 380-395.

Hyman, J. & Summers, J. 2004. Lacking balance? Work-life employment practices in the modern economy. Personnel Review. 33(4): 418-429.

Katz, D. & Kahn, R.L. 1966. The social psychology of organizations. New York: Wiley.

Kiger, P.J. 2005. A case for childcare. Business Perspectives. 17(2): 24-29.

Kirrane, M. & Buckley, F. 2004. The influence of support relationships on work-family conflict: Differentiating emotional from instrumental support. Equal Opportunities International. 23 (1/2): 78-96.

19

Lewis, S. Rapoport, R. & Gambles, R. 2003. Reflections on the integration of paid work and the rest of life. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 18(8): 824-841.

Mellor, S. Mathieu, J.E. Barnes-Farrell, J.L. & Rogelberg, S.G. 2001. Employees’ non-work obligations and organisational commitments: A new way to look at the relationships. Human Resource Management, 40(2): 171-184.

Noor, N. 2004. Work-Family Conflict, Work- and Family-Role Salience, and Women's Well-Being. The Journal of Social Psychology. 144(4): 389-405.

Pocock, B. 2005. Work-life ‘balance’ in Australia: Limited progress, dim prospects. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 43(2): 198-209.

Shorthose, J. 2004. Like summer and good sex?: The limitation of the work-life balance campaign. Capital & Class. 82: 1-8.

Smithson, J. & Stokoe, E.H. 2005. Discourses of work-life balance: Negotiating ‘gender blind’ terms in organisations. Gender, Work and Organisation, 12(2): 147-168.

Spinks, N. 2004. Work-life balance: Achievable goal or pipe-dream? The Journal for Quality and Participation. 27(3): 4-11.

Wilson, H.S. 1985. Research in nursing. USA. Addison-Wesley.

Wise, S. & Bond, S. 2003. Work-life policy: Does it do exactly what it says on the tin? Women in Management Review. 18(1/2): 20-31.

20